Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-01-2015 | Original Article

Time pressure affects the efficiency of perceptual processing in decisions under conflict

Auteurs: Michael Dambacher, Ronald Hübner

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 1/2015

Abstract

The negative correlation between speed and accuracy in perceptual decision making is often explained as a tradeoff, where lowered decision boundaries under time pressure result in faster but more error-prone responses. Corresponding implementations in sequential sampling models confirmed the success of this account, which has led to the prevalent assumption that a second component of decision making, the efficiency of perceptual processing, is largely independent from temporal demands. To test the generality of this claim, we examined time pressure effects on decisions under conflict. Data from a flanker task were fit with a sequential sampling model that incorporates two successive phases of response selection, driven by the output of an early and late stage of stimulus selection, respectively. The fits revealed the canonical decrease of response boundaries with increasing time pressure. In addition, time pressure reduced the duration of non-decisional processes and impaired the early stage of stimulus selection, together with the subsequent first phase of response selection. The results show that the relation between speed and accuracy not only relies on the strategic adjustment of response boundaries but involves variations of processing efficiency. The findings support recent evidence of drift rate modulations in response to time pressure in simple perceptual decisions and confirm their validity in the context of more complex tasks.

vorige artikel On the purposes of color for living beings: toward a theory of color organization

volgende artikel Multiplication facts and the mental number line: evidence from unbounded number line estimation

Abdi, H., & Williams, L. J. (2010). Jackknife. In N. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Research Design (pp. 655–661). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Bausenhart, K. M., Rolke, B., Seibold, V. C., & Ulrich, R. (2010). Temporal preparation influences the dynamics of information processing: evidence for early onset of information accumulation. Vision Research, 50(11), 1025–1034. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2010.03.011.PubMedCrossRef

Bogacz, R., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Forstmann, B. U., & Nieuwenhuis, S. (2010). The neural basis of the speed-accuracy tradeoff. Trends in Neurosciences, 33(1), 10–16. doi:10.1016/j.tins.2009.09.002.PubMedCrossRef

Brent, R. P. (1973). Algorithms for function minimization without derivatives. Englewood-Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Brown, S., & Heathcote, A. (2005). A ballistic model of choice response time. Psychological Review, 112(1), 117–128. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.117.PubMedCrossRef

Brown, S., & Heathcote, A. (2008). The simplest complete model of choice response time: linear ballistic accumulation. Cognitive Psychology, 57(3), 153–178. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2007.12.002.PubMedCrossRef

Busemeyer, J. R., & Townsend, J. T. (1993). Decision field theory: a dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psychological Review, 100(3), 432–459.PubMedCrossRef

Carrasco, M., & McElree, B. (2001). Covert attention accelerates the rate of visual information processing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 98(9), 5363–5367. doi:10.1073/pnas.081074098.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Dambacher, M., & Hübner, R. (2013). Investigating the speed-accuracy trade-off: better use deadlines or response signals? Behavior Research Methods, 45(3), 702–717. doi:10.3758/s13428-012-0303-0.PubMedCrossRef

Dambacher, M., Hübner, R., & Schlösser, J. (2011). Monetary incentives in speeded perceptual decision: effects of penalizing errors versus slow responses. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 248. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00248.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Diederich, A., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2006). Modeling the effects of payoff on response bias in a perceptual discrimination task: bound-change, drift-rate-change, or two-stage-processing hypothesis. Perception and Psychophysics, 68(2), 194–207.PubMedCrossRef

Dosher, B. A. (1976). The retrieval of sentences from memory: a speed-accuracy study. Cognitive Psychology, 8(3), 291–310. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(76)90009-8.CrossRef

Efron, B. (1979). Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. The Annals of Statistics, 7(1), 1–26.CrossRef

Efron, B. (1982). The jackknife, the bootstrap and other resampling plans. Montpelier: Capital City Press.CrossRef

Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception and Psychophysics, 16(1), 143–149. doi:10.3758/BF03203267.CrossRef

Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241. doi:10.1177/1745691612460685.CrossRef

Fitts, P. M. (1954). The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 121(3), 262–269.CrossRef

Forstmann, B. U., Anwander, A., Schäfer, A., Neumann, J., Brown, S., Wagenmakers, E.-J., et al. (2010). Cortico-striatal connections predict control over speed and accuracy in perceptual decision making. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(36), 15916–15920. doi:10.1073/pnas.1004932107.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Forstmann, B. U., Dutilh, G., Brown, S., Neumann, J., von Cramon, D. Y., Ridderinkhof, K. R., et al. (2008). Striatum and pre-SMA facilitate decision-making under time pressure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(45), 17538–17542. doi:10.1073/pnas.0805903105.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Forstmann, B. U., Tittgemeyer, M., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Derrfuss, J., Imperati, D., & Brown, S. (2011). The speed-accuracy tradeoff in the elderly brain: a structural model-based approach. The Journal of Neuroscience, 31(47), 17242–17249. doi:10.1523/jneurosci.0309-11.2011.PubMedCrossRef

Garrett, H.E. (1922). A study of the relation of accuracy to speed. Archives of Psychology, 56, 1–104.

Gegenfurtner, K. R. (1992). PRAXIS: Brent’s algorithm for function minimization. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 24(4), 560–564. doi:10.3758/BF03203605.CrossRef

Gratton, G., Coles, M. G. H., & Donchin, E. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121(4), 480–506.CrossRef

Gray, H. L., & Schucany, W. R. (1972). The generalized jackknife statistic. New York: Marcel Dekker.

Harris, C. M., & Wolpert, D. M. (1998). Signal-dependent noise determines motor planning. Nature, 394(20), 780–784.PubMedCrossRef

Heathcote, A., & Love, J. (2012). Linear deterministic accumulator models of simple choice. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 292. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00292.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Heitz, R. P., & Schall, J. D. (2012). Neural mechanisms of speed-accuracy tradeoff. Neuron, 76(3), 616–628. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2012.08.030.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Ho, T., Brown, S., van Maanen, L., Forstmann, B. U., Wagenmakers, E.-J., & Serences, J. T. (2012). The optimality of sensory processing during the speed-accuracy tradeoff. The Journal of Neuroscience, 32(23), 7992–8003. doi:10.1523/jneurosci0340-12.2012.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Hübner, R., & Schlösser, J. (2010). Monetary reward increases attentional effort in the flanker task. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 17(6), 821–826. doi:10.3758/pbr.17.6.821.PubMedCrossRef

Hübner, R., Steinhauser, M., & Lehle, C. (2010). A dual-stage two-phase model of selective attention. Psychological Review, 117(3), 759–784. doi:10.1037/a0019471.PubMedCrossRef

Hübner, R., & Töbel, L. (2012). Does attentional selectivity in the flanker task improve discretely or gradually? Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 434. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00434.

Ivanoff, J., Branning, P., & Marois, R. (2008). fMRI evidence for a dual process account of the speed-accuracy tradeoff in decision-making. PLoS One, 3(7), e2635. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002635.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Jackson, P. R. (1986). Robust methods in statistics. In A. D. Lovie (Ed.), New developments in statistics for psychology and the social sciences (pp. 22–43). London: The British Psychological Society and Methuen.

Kleinsorge, T. (2001). The time course of effort mobilization and strategic adjustments of response criteria. Psychological Research, 65(3), 216–223.PubMedCrossRef

Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108(2), 393–434.PubMedCrossRef

McElree, B., & Carrasco, M. (1999). The temporal dynamics of visual search: evidence for parallel processing in feature and conjunction searches. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(6), 1517–1539.PubMedCentralPubMed

Miller, J., Patterson, T., & Ulrich, R. (1998). Jackknife-based method for measuring LRP onset latency differences. Psychophysiology, 35(1), 99–115.PubMedCrossRef

Miller, J., Sproesser, G., & Ulrich, R. (2008). Constant versus variable response signal delays in speed–accuracy trade-offs: effects of advance preparation for processing time. Perception and Psychophysics, 70(5), 878–886.PubMedCrossRef

Mosteller, F., & Tukey, J. (1977). Data analysis and regression. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

Osman, A., Lou, L., Müller-Gethmann, H., Rinkenauer, G., Mattes, S., & Ulrich, R. (2000). Mechanisms of speed–accuracy tradeoff: evidence from covert motor processes. Biological Psychology, 51(2–3), 173–199.PubMedCrossRef

Palmer, J., Huk, A. C., & Shadlen, M. N. (2005). The effect of stimulus strength on the speed and accuracy of a perceptual decision. Journal of Vision, 5(5), 376–404. doi:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16097871.PubMedCrossRef

Philiastides, M. G., Ratcliff, R., & Sajda, P. (2006). Neural representation of task difficulty and decision making during perceptual categorization: a timing diagram. The Journal of Neuroscience, 26(35), 8965–8975. doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1655-06.2006.PubMedCrossRef

Rae, B., Heathcote, A., Donkin, C., Averell, L., & Brown, S. (2014). The hare and the tortoise: emphasizing speed can change the evidence used to make decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition (in press).

Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85(2), 59–108.CrossRef

Ratcliff, R. (1979). Group reaction time distributions and an analysis of distribution statistics. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 446–461.PubMedCrossRef

Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (2008). The diffusion decision model: theory and data for two-choice decision tasks. Neural Computation, 20(4), 873–922. doi:10.1162/neco.2008.12-06-420.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Ratcliff, R., & Rouder, J. N. (1998). Modeling response times for two-choice decisions. Psychological Science, 9(5), 347–356. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00067.CrossRef

Ratcliff, R., & Smith, P. L. (2004). A comparison of sequential sampling models for two-choice reaction time. Psychological Review, 111(2), 333–367. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.111.2.333.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Ratcliff, R., Thapar, A., & McKoon, G. (2003). A diffusion model analysis of the effects of aging on brightness discrimination. Perception and Psychophysics, 65(4), 523–535.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Reed, A. V. (1973). Speed-accuracy trade-off in recognition memory. Science, 181(4099), 574–576. doi:10.1126/science.181.4099.574.PubMedCrossRef

Rinkenauer, G., Osman, A., Ulrich, R., Müller-Gethmann, H., & Mattes, S. (2004). On the locus of speed-accuracy trade-off in reaction time: inferences from the lateralized readiness potential. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(2), 261–282. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.261.CrossRef

Seibold, V. C., Bausenhart, K. M., Rolke, B., & Ulrich, R. (2011). Does temporal preparation increase the rate of sensory information accumulation? Acta Psychologica, 137(1), 56–64. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.02.006.PubMedCrossRef

Simon, J. R. (1990). The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: an integrated perspective (pp. 31–86). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Starns, J. J., Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (2012). Evaluating the unequal-variance and dual-process explanations of zROC slopes with response time data and the diffusion model. Cognitive Psychology, 64(1–2), 1–34. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2011.10.002.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643–662. doi:10.1037/h0054651.CrossRef

Ulrich, R., & Miller, J. (2001). Using the jackknife-based scoring method for measuring LRP onset effects in factorial designs. Psychophysiology, 38(5), 816–827.PubMedCrossRef

Usher, M., & McClelland, J. L. (2001). The time course of perceptual choice: the leaky, competing accumulator model. Psychological Review, 108(3), 550–592. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.108.3.550.PubMedCrossRef

Van der Lubbe, R. H. J., Jaśkowski, P., Wauschkuhn, B., & Verleger, R. (2001). Influence of time pressure in a simple response task, a choice-by-location task, and the Simon task. Journal of Psychophysiology, 15(4), 241–255. doi:10.1027//0269-8803.15.4.241.CrossRef

Van Veen, V., Krug, M. K., & Carter, C. S. (2008). The neural and computational basis of controlled speed-accuracy tradeoff during task performance. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(11), 1952–1965. doi:10.1162/jocn.2008.20146.PubMedCrossRef

Vandekerckhove, J., Tuerlinckx, F., & Lee, M.D. (2008). A Bayesian approach to diffusion process models of decision-making. In V. Sloutsky, B. Love, & K. McRae (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1429–1434). Austin.

Voss, A., Nagler, M., & Lerche, V. (2013). Diffusion models in experimental psychology: a practical introduction. Experimental Psychology, 60, 385–402. doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000218.

White, C. N., Ratcliff, R., & Starns, J. J. (2011). Diffusion models of the flanker task: discrete versus gradual attentional selection. Cognitive Psychology, 63(4), 210–238. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2011.08.001.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Wickelgren, W. A. (1977). Speed-accuracy tradeoff and information processing dynamics. Acta Psychologica, 41(1), 67–85. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(77)90012-9.CrossRef

Titel: Time pressure affects the efficiency of perceptual processing in decisions under conflict
Auteurs: Michael Dambacher
Ronald Hübner
Publicatiedatum: 01-01-2015
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 1/2015
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-014-0542-z

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 1/2015

Simon in action: the effect of spatial congruency on grasping trajectories

On the purposes of color for living beings: toward a theory of color organization

Multiplication facts and the mental number line: evidence from unbounded number line estimation

Tracking the attentional blink profile: a cross-sectional study from childhood to adolescence

Sex differences in the weighting of metric and categorical information in spatial location memory

Generality and specificity in cognitive control: conflict adaptation within and across selective-attention tasks but not across selective-attention and Simon tasks